Aim: The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Background-The Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiologic stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores.

Aim: The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

No abstract

'Heart failure self care' refers to the practices in which patients engage to maintain their own health, and to the decisions that they make about managing signs or symptoms. In this article, we base our discussion of self care in chronic heart failure on the classification of patients as being 'expert', inconsistent', or 'novice' in heart failure self-care behaviors. The available literature on factors predicting heart failure self care and its outcomes are reviewed within this context. Factors known to influence heart failure self care include experience with the illness, physical functioning, depression and anxiety, social support, daytime sleepiness, and attitudes such as confidence. Further research is needed to understand the contributions of comorbidities, patient sex, and health disparities on heart failure self care. The evidence to support a link between heart failure self care and health outcomes is limited, but early evidence suggests that adequate self care is associated with an improvement in health status, a decrease in the number and duration of hospitalizations, and a decline in levels of biomarkers of stress and inflammation, and in intrathoracic impedance. Implications of heart failure self care for clinical practice, policy, and public health are also described.

No abstract

Despite the importance of both members of the adult patient-care partner dyad, a majority of research on illness management is focused on the patient or the care partner. The basic principle of the Theory of Dyadic Illness Management is that illness management is a dyadic phenomenon; the theory focuses extensively on the dyad as an interdependent team. The way dyads appraise illness as a unit influences the ways in which they engage in behaviors to manage illness together in a recursive fashion that influences dyadic health. Optimizing the health of both members of the dyad is a goal of the theory. In turn, the health of the dyad can feedback to influence how they appraise and manage illness together. Finally, dyadic illness management is an inherently variable process that is influenced by several contextual factors. Supportive evidence and implications for practice and future research are presented.

Background There is a growing interest in the intersection of heart failure (HF) and frailty; however, estimates of the prevalence of frailty in HF vary widely. The purpose of this paper was to quantitatively synthesize published literature on the prevalence of frailty in HF and to examine the relationship between study characteristics (i.e. age and functional class) and the prevalence of frailty in HF. Methods The prevalence of frailty in HF, divided into Physical Frailty and Multidimensional Frailty measures, was synthesized across published studies using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions approach. Meta-regression was performed to examine the influence of age and functional class (at the level of the study) on the prevalence of frailty. Results A total of 26 studies involving 6896 patients with HF were included in this meta-analysis. Despite considerable differences across studies, the overall estimated prevalence of frailty in HF was 44.5% (95% Confidence Interval, 36.2%–52.8%; z = 10.54; p < 0.001). The prevalence was slightly lower among studies using Physical Frailty measures (42.9%, z = 9.05; p < 0.001) and slightly higher among studies using Multidimensional Frailty measures (47.4%, z = 5.66; p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between study age or functional class and prevalence of frailty. Conclusions Frailty affects almost half of patients with HF and is not necessarily a function of age or functional classification. Future work should focus on standardizing the measurement of frailty and on broadening the view of frailty beyond a strictly geriatric syndrome in HF.